9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... astily and adjusted the amount without affording proper opportunity to the appellant. Under the circumstances, there is clear violation of the principles of natural justice - Direction to the respondent to take up the matter, consider the case of the appellant and after giving opportunity to the appellant, decide the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Setting aside the above said impugned orders of the respondent only in respect of adjustment of rebate amount, and in all other aspects, the orders passed by the respondent shall remain unaltered – Decided in favor of Assessee. - Writ Appeal (MD) Nos. 483 and 564-568 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2012 - P.P.S. Janarthana Raja and M. Duraiswamy, JJ. Shri T. Mohan for Ms. D. Geetha, for the Appellant. Shri R. Aravindan, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT By consent of the learned counsel on both the sides, the main writ appeals are taken up for final disposal. Since the issue involved in these writ appeals is one and the same, the same are taken up and being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The facts arisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the stay on 9-5-2011 for a further period of six months. The said period of 6 months expired on 9-11-2011. Thereafter, due to non-availability of members, there was no sitting and therefore, the appellant s petition praying for further extension of stay is pending before the CESTAT. The respondent issued a letter dated 9-11-2011 asking the appellant to produce the CESTAT s final order for extension of stay, within 10 days of expiry of the stay period mentioned in the CESTAT s order or else, directed the appellant to make the payment. The said letter was received by the appellant on 18-11-2011. After receiving the letter, the appellant sent a reply letter dated 19-11-2011 stating that the stay application is pending before the CESTAT. It is also further stated in the letter that there is no regular sitting of the CESTAT and hence the appellant is unable to move the CESTAT. Further it is also stated that the appellant could not be found fault with, since there is no sitting due to administrative exigencies. The appellant also relied on the Circular No. 925/15/2010-CX., dated 26-5-2010 issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs, which states that no coercive proceedings should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the learned single Judge is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. The respondent issued the letter dated 9-11-2011 directing the appellant to produce the stay order within 10 days of expiry of the stay period mentioned in the CESTAT s order. The CESTAT finally granted stay for a period of six months from 9-5-2011 which expired on 9-11-2011. The appellant was directed to get extension of stay within 10 days from the expiry date, i.e., from 9-11-2011. So, the last date for getting extension of stay is 19-11-2011. There is no stay obtained by the appellant during the relevant period as there is no sitting of the CESTAT due to administrative exigencies. Further, the said letter dated 9-11-2011 was received by the appellant only on 18-11-2011. There is no dispute that the respondent sent the letter dated 9-11-2011, which was received by the appellant only on 18-11-2011. It is also to be noted that on the same day, i.e., on 18-11-2011, the respondent passed two orders adjusting the amount and the remaining four orders were p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the impugned order and as expressed in the Larger Bench matter, namely, IPCL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara (supra) cannot be faulted. However, we should not be understood as holding that any latitude is given to the Tribunal to extend the period of stay except on good cause and only if the Tribunal is satisfied that the matter could not be heard and disposed of by reason of the fault of the Tribunal for reasons not attributable to the assessee [2005 (180) E.L.T. 434 (S.C.)]. 4. A harmonious reading of the statutory provision and judicial pronouncements in the matter would mean that while the Tribunals are expected to dispose of cases as stipulated in the above Section, nothing prevents them from granting stay beyond six months. However, the extension of stay has to be applied for by the party. Thus, the outcome of the above interpretation would be that, wherever stay period is over and final decision has not been pronounced, the Department may by a simple letter ask the party to pay and the party would be at liberty to go back to the Tribunal for seeking extension of stay. Coercive measures, without giving an opportunity to the party to seek further extension of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the outcome of the appeals before the Tribunal and that no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondent against the petitioner towards demands. The Tribunal shall decide the appeals on their own merits, untrammelled by any of the observations made in this order. It is needless to mention that until the appeals are taken up by the Tribunal, the interim stay, already granted by this Court on 25-11-2011, shall continue. From a reading of the above extracted portion of the impugned order, it is clear that relevant factors have not been taken note of. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. Consequently, we are also setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent in C. No. V/54-55/18/49/2011 Rebate Order-in-Original No. 90/2011 dated 18-11-2011, V/54-55/18/51/2011 Order-in-Original 92 of 2011 (Rebate), dated 22-11-2011, V/54-55/18/50/2011 Order-in-Original 93 of 2011 (Rebate), dated 23-11-2011, V/54-55/18/52/2011 Order-in-Original 94 of 2011 (Rebate), dated 24-11-2011, V/54-55/18/53/2011 Order-in-Original 95 of 2011 (Rebate), dated 25-11-2011 and C. No. V/54-55/18/48/2011-Rebate Order-in-Original No. 91/2011 dated 18-11-2011, in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
